January 14, 2008

You know, I've noted before that if Hillary attacks Obama too hard she risks losing black supporters -- and others who've invested in Obama. But it works both ways -- if Obama looks too much like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or even like he's too close to those two politically, he'll lose a lot of people who've rallied to him precisely because he promised "a new kind of politics." You can't run as a uniter, and engage in racial politicking at the same time. Well, you can -- but it won't work very well.

167 comments:

The prospective twin virtues of Obama's candidacy is ridding the nation of the Clintons from the political landscape, and taking much of the emotional steam out of the nation's racial discourse. It's becoming increasingly clear Obama isn't up to either task, although he still may yet succeed in the first, Democrat primary voters and super-delegates permitting.

I think the Clintons would rather lose the general election than see Obama win it. If the Clintons figure that they can just edge out a nomination, even at the cost of dividing their party, they'll do it.

You just have to get enough people to think you're not really the one raising the subject

I'm not sure that's enough. People are turned off of the Clintons because (among other things) they don't want to continue the acrimonious politics of the nineties and the noughts. Regardless of whether a President Obama is the one instigating the race-baiters or not, the prospect of 4 years of America's Sharptons braying that any criticism of Obama is RACISM! probably takes a bit of the bloom of the rose. It adds a whole new dimension of poison to the politics.

This whole episode reminds me of the Tiger Woods / Fuzzy Zoeller incident. Fuzzy made some comment about fried chicken being served at a meal that Tiger was hosting (and the host of the meal picks the menu). Some argued that it was a racially offensive comment -- others said that it was not and called on Tiger to let Zoeller off the hook, which he sort of did after several days. I recall people being very upset that Tiger "let Fuzzy" twist in the wind.

The Clintons' comments ("Fairy Tale", MLK / LBJ) seem to boil down to two issues.

1. Are these comments racist, or are they at least intended to play on the racial anxieties of white voters?

2. If the answer to 1 above is no, does Obama have a duty to take the Clintons off of the hook.

Obama let Joe Biden off the hook a few months ago when Biden put his foot in his mouth about Obama being articulate. This campaign has kind of gotten nasty though -- kind of hard to go after someone like Bill has and then turn around and be offended that you got kicked in the shin. Also kind of hard talk about how unracist you are when your surrogates have filed a lawsuit to make it harder for black and hispanic low wage earners participate in the Nevada caucus.

This reminds me of that scene in Spy Game where Brad Pitt says you can't trade people's lives like they are baseball cards becuase "this is not a game." Robert Redford's character snaps back "Oh yes it is a game" and it is a game we have to win and if you have to ask yourself if you have the stomach to play by its rules.

When are Obama, Clinton, or Edwards going to denounce their own rush to judgment and justice in the Jena 6 case?

It's now clear that the Jena 6 case, according to the Weekly Standard, was not so very different from the Duke Lacrosse case....

Consider what the Democratic candidates said, according to CNN, when the issue was hot....

"As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel a special responsibility to speak out on racial intolerance. Americans of all races are traveling to Jena because they believe that how we respond to the racial tensions in Jena says everything about who we are as a nation." -- John Edwards

"This case reminds us that the scales of justice are seriously out of balance when it comes to charging, sentencing, and punishing African-Americans." -- Hillary Clinton

"Outrage over an injustice like the Jena 6 isn't a matter of black and white. It's a matter of right and wrong....I am pleased that the Louisiana state appeals court recognized that the aggravated battery charge [against the defendant Mychal Bell] brought in this case was inappropriate." -- Barack Obama

Sen. Obama got it exactly wrong....

"It is hard to say how much Bell's legal team accomplished for him in practical terms [when he was going to be retried in the juvenile courts system]. The plea offered him in both his adult and juvenile proceedings was the same: second-degree battery (Bell's mother told a reporter that the adult-court plea bargain that Bell rejected would have had him serve a four-year sentence, with three years to be suspended and credit given for the time Bell had already spent behind bars). In addition to serving 18 months in juvenile custody as part of his December 3 plea bargain and agreeing to testify in the trials of the other five of the Jena Six, Bell promised to pay $935 in court costs and partial restitution to Barker's parents for their son's medical expenses. Emergency-room treatment for [Justin] Barker's head injuries cost at least $5,000. Barker's parents have asserted that the total medical expenses for their son, who said he lost the sight of one eye for three weeks and suffered permanent damage to both his vision and his hearing, were upwards of $19,000. The day after Bell's plea, Barker and his parents filed a civil lawsuit against the adult Jena defendants, the parents of the minors, and the LaSalle Parish school system seeking full compensation for their losses." -- Weekly Standard

(Also fascinating...the Standard reports that NPR, the BBC, and the Chicago Tribune got suckered by a phony inflammatory story-line passed off by a white out-of-town minister with an ax to grind who targeted those outlets because he knew they'd be sympathetic to his story line....)

fairy tale is a racist statement? Give me a break. Not even close. All Presidenet Clinton did was criticize Obama's position on the war--substantively, it was Clinton who was telling the fairy tale, but fairy tale is most certainly not racist.

As to the furor about MLK's role in the civil rights bill. Also much ado about nothing. The civil criticizing or praising MLK is, IMO, not racist at all.

Is racism alive and well? of course--its rooted in the human condition. But for the most part, I see American society as reasonably well adapted. There is a small group of people: the Sharpton's, the Dukes, the Jacksons and a few others that keep the fires stoked. But I simply do not see the comments thus far in the democratic campaign racist at all. People have to be reading in a whole lot of code words that, IMO, arent there.

Balfegor said..."People are turned off of the Clintons because (among other things) they don't want to continue the acrimonious politics of the nineties and the noughts."

I don't mean to suggest that they don't think that, but as I pointed out last week, the idea that the acrimony is a result of particular people - still less that it will stop if we elect Obama. "Polarization is the result of real people really disagreeing on issues that they think are really important," and that's not going to stop just because there's a President who isn't called Bush or Clinton. While it's true that everyone's tired of the acrimonious tone of politics, here's what I said about that last February: while it's true that "there are substantial numbers of people in this country who are sick of the culture wars, there are very few people who don't have an opinion about these subjects. Planned Parenthood, no doubt, is 'exhausted' by the constant need to defend a woman's right to choose, and Nan Aron would doubtless share the sentiment of 'give it a fricken rest.' Everyone wants the culture wars to end ... but they want them to end with their side on top." (Alteration omitted; emphases in original).

You know I think Obama is the Lynn Swann of politics. Which is weird since Lynn Swann ran for governor, and now Lynn Swann can't be the Lynn Swann of politics. I am getting confused. I feel like Tony Romo looking at all those Jessica Simpson impersonators the New York Post sent to the game yesterday.

This is not exactly on topic but I am not sure I understand how Obama is a uniter. His policies seem to be fairly left wing and more left wing than Hillary's. Furthermore if Bill's presidency is any indicator it would seem that Hillary as Bill would follow the polls and be unprincipled leaving Hillary in running a center left government. Obama on the other hand seems less sleazy and more principled. His expressed policies are not uniting ones as the are pretty far to the left of the political spectrum and he hasnt expressed and practical goals which would unite us. Unless he means I will unite us all under a liberal and left wing administration which to me doesnt sound like a uniter.

Criticise the slightest little thing about Obama and you are accused of being a racist. Don't use any criticism and turn a blind eye to any failings or inconsistencies in Obama's life, beliefs or his campaign tactics and we might just let slide in something that will create an even more toxic racist environment.

Hint: You don't have to be white to be a racist. Bigotry and suppression of free thought comes in many colors.

Simon…“What exactly do you think she said that involved her sticking her foot in her mouth?”

Her foot is always stuck in her mouth. She has this neat trick. Every time her lips move- bam!- foot in the mouth. That is why she made that ridiculous statement-"people should learn to read what we say".

Of course no one in the media, or any intelligent people made anything about this inane statement. They think the only reason Hillary doesn't walk on water is because she doesn't want to get her feet wet.

This whole episode reminds me of the Tiger Woods / Fuzzy Zoeller incident. Fuzzy made some comment about fried chicken being served at a meal that Tiger was hosting (and the host of the meal picks the menu).

That was an ill-advised racial joke with no malice behind it. I'm simply not seeing any way the Clinton "fairy tale" comment can be construed as have anything whatsoever to do with race.

Sorry simon. I had a false hope that you would understand what Hillary had said.

No, no - if you're going to make backhanded insinuations that Hillary said something racist, you back it up. What did she say that you think is racist. I'm not intersted in what Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson et al think is a racist comment, I want to know what you think she said that stuck her foot into her mouth.

I thought it was Senator Larry Craig who got in trouble for sticking a foot in his mouth….what…..it was tapping a foot…and putting something else in his mouth…that seemed like it was yesterday….I get so confused when I get distracted when one of my teams is in the playoffs. Sorry. I will try to pay more attention to the displays of marginalia.

In what way? Explain how you think his remarks about someone else's article are playing the race card?

Or is this just proving my point that we aren't allowed to express any thoughts or criticism of Obama without being accused of racism. If this the an example of the political correctness pretzel bending that we are in for with an Obama Presidency....it is going to be a very very long and tedious 4 years.

seems to have anything to do with Obama's race. (1) is embarassing youthful indiscretions; (2) is possibly racially insensitive, but it has nothing to do with Obama; (3) is about Obama's total lack of anything resembling preparation for the Presidency; and (5) is about Muslims (or just Saddam Hussein), not Obama's race.

More at: "Obama's Minister and Church" at volokh.com. There do seem to be some questions about Obama's church and minister mentor. In particular, there is a question about the church honoring Farrakhan.

There's nothing faulty or racially charged in the "spade work" comment. The charge that Hillary "minimized" MLK's role is simply preposterous - she made the point that the civil rights movement created the climate for the CRA but it was also necessary to have a Congress to pass it and a President to sign it - an entirely unexceptional statement. If mere wishes could enact legislation, we would be out of Iraq - and we aren't, because Clinton is entirely correct that Congress and the Presidency matter. Anyone trying to rest a point on that story is either selling or drinking kool aid; you'd have to be a moron to detect racial overtones in that statement, which is exactly why I asked FLS which statement s/he thought had embarassed Clinton. I assume it's not that one, because FLS has repeatedly shown him/herself to be anything but a moron, so I wondered what else there is.

As to the other three points - I have no idea how common a phrase "shuck and jive" is (it's the first time I've heard it, but I live in the midwest). Neither Kerrey's comment nor the drug usage allusion have anything to do with race.

I have no idea how common a phrase "shuck and jive" is (it's the first time I've heard it, but I live in the midwest).

Why don’t you try limiting yourself to subjects you know something about? If you’ve lived in a relatively sheltered environment you may not have the experience to pose as some kind of expert on race relations.

re "shuck and jive:" I don't think Simon was portraying himself as an expert on race relations--he simply asked a question. And if every commenter limited themselves to commenting on things they knew about, or were qualified by education or experience to pontificate on, we wouldnt have blogs. This is a blog, and not a peer reviewed journal article, Antiphone: get a grip.

I think that Obama would have an easier time winning election than Hillary would -- UNLESS he associates with characters like Sharpton and Jackson. That sort of racial hucksterism plays well in the Democratic Party, but it turns off almost everyone else.

It would be ironic if the tactic that helped Obama obtain the nomination ended up being the tactic that sinks him in the general election.

The Rasmussen poll figures are interesting in terms of the general election. If Obama becomes the Democratic candidate, will white voters sit it out or go republican? Similarly, if HRC is the candidate, will the black voters abandon her and the democratic party? In a close election, I wouldnt think the Dems could afford to lose that constituency in the general election.

The term “race card” is usually used to signify the exploitation of racial prejudice for unfair advantage. The underlying assumption being that discrimination is a thing of the past and therefore any mention of race is manipulative and identified with playing the “victim”. Undoubtedly anyone who listens to right wing radio understands this context whether consciously of subconsciously.

I love it: there's nothing like a democratic primary fight to bring out the absolute worst in politicians. Agree with madawaskan: Its going to get a whole lot uglier on the democratic side before their convention. I would love to see a brokered democratic convention! And if HRC doesnt get the nomination, and Obama does, will she run as an independent?

The term “race card” is usually used to signify the exploitation of racial prejudice for unfair advantage. The underlying assumption being that discrimination is a thing of the past and therefore any mention of race is manipulative and identified with playing the “victim

Ok.. I agree that can be the definition of "playing the race card". How does this apply to your statement that Glenn Reynolds played the race card in the quote in Ann's post? That's a red herring about right wing radio and it has nothing to do with your answering my question. Can't think of anything else to clarify your remarks with so you trot out the right wing radio/Rush Limbaugh/Fox News etc etc etc obfuscations. Weak.

We are in for a very bumpy ride this election cycle where every little remark is taken out of context and turned into a race baiting or gender slamming accusation. Not that there isn't racism or gender discrimination. The issue is who is promoting and profiting by it. Obama and Hillary seem perfectly happy to do both.

...to pose as some kind of expert on race relations. What does shuck and jive have to do with race relations. It is nothing more than a street term placed in the lexicon and a left over from the Jazz period.

Not that there isn't racism or gender discrimination. The issue is who is promoting and profiting by it. Obama and Hillary seem perfectly happy to do both.

I don’t see it that way, Obama is forced to defend against the subtle and not so subtle slurs from Hillary Clinton’s surrogates. To say that he profits from the reaction to their mud slinging is ludicrous. Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds is imposing a catch 22 standard to Obama, damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t defend himself. It’s double standard and another flavor of “politically correct”.

Is Glenn really saying it's up to Obama to let the Clintons off the hook for their too-clever-by-half racial implications, and that if Obama doesn't then he's the one playing the race card?

This Clinton 2.0 is seeming like a worse idea by the week. They are the black hole of the Democratic party.

George Will has a column out now saying 2008 looks like a terrible year for the Republicans. It looks like an even worse year for the Democrats if the nomination process is going to be a standoff between "Sexist code word!" and "Racist code word!" until the convention. While I fully embrace the idea that it is time women and blacks had an equal shot at the presidency, it won't happen as long as it's seen as an extension of identity politics, and especially not if it's seen as two warring identity politics factions trying to compete for who's the biggest victim.

What does shuck and jive have to do with race relations. It is nothing more than a street term placed in the lexicon and a left over from the Jazz period.

If you Google "shuck and jive" this is the #1 return.

"To shuck and jive" originally referred to the intentionally misleading words and actions that African-Americans would employ in order to deceive racist Euro-Americans in power, both during the period of slavery and afterwards. The expression was documented as being in wide usage in the 1920s, but may have originated much earlier.

"Shucking and jiving" was a tactic of both survival and resistance. A slave, for instance, could say eagerly, "Oh, yes, Master," and have no real intention to obey. Or an African-American man could pretend to be working hard at a task he was ordered to do, but might put up this pretense only when under observation. Both would be instances of "doin' the old shuck 'n jive."

Today, the expression has expanded somewhat from earlier usage, and is now sometimes used to mean "talking pure baloney," "goofing off," or "goofing around." The original meaning of deceit often remains, however.

Once this issue has been raised, and it has, there is no comment on Obama by the Clinton camp that could not have some racist subtext extracted from it by those schooled in post-modern deconstructionist methods. Hillary may as well concede now and get it over with.

While the yahoo answer person might be corrrect in defining shuck and jive, I would rather see if the term is in the OED. The yahoo definition smacks of political correctness. Where is Beth when we really need her.

What Hillary said: "Black leaders, however inspirational, are ineffectual dreamers peddling false hopes. You need a white President to secure your rights." This "It takes a Bubba to save your life" meme insults all black people, the more so because there is no way a black man could have been viewed as a credible candidate for President in the 1960s, especially not by a Goldwater Republican like Hillary.

Jive Lady: Oh stewardess! I speak jive. Randy: Oh, good. Jive Lady: He said that he's in great pain and he wants to know if you can help him. Randy: All right. Would you tell him to just relax and I'll be back as soon as I can with some medicine? Jive Lady: Jus' hang loose, blood. She gonna catch ya up on da' rebound on da' med side. Second Jive Dude: What it is, big mama? My mama no raise no dummies. I dug her rap! Jive Lady Cut me some slack, Jack! Chump don' want no help, chump don't GET da' help! Jive Dude: Say 'e can't hang, say seven up! Jive Lady: Jive ass dude don't got no brains anyhow! Hmmph!(Airplane, 1980)

What did she say that you think is racist. I'm not intersted in what Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson et al

Except the "et al" is many, many, many black people. Not race rabblerousers. But actual voters. People who would otherwise vote for Hillary. You need to just accept that she made some unwise remarks and refused to apologize.

Frankly, an apology would have killed the whole issue. Instead, she decided to attack Obama. Yuck.

Ah. Festering GOP racists. Once again you are blinded by hatred of any one who does not agree with you. Is your only friend the guy who stares back at you from the mirror when you shave?

Let us leave aside the ranking Democratic member of the legislature who is/was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Let us revisit history.

You create a system that keeps people living in a state of poverty and you provide just enough to fulfill their merest necessities. You place them in a basically restricted area. You see to it that they are dependent upon you for everything, including their very health. From womb to grave, they need you. There were only two systems like that in the United States. Both were supported by racist Democrats.

One was slavery. The other was the Great Society welfare system. Only racists could create a system that kept generations of people in a state of poverty while telling them there was a war on poverty and wealth was being redistributed. Only racists could have dreamed up public housing- the urban plantation system. Only racists could have dreamed up a system that sucks out hope and replaces it with despair and apathy. Only racists could have destroyed the proud Black Middle Class that existed prior to their Great Society. Those racists were Democrats.

So, Mr. Louse, the Democrats have a proven, documented history of racism dating back to the days of slavery and it continues today. They want to even expand it and undo all the reforms.

Whenever any Republican legislator or President wanted to reform this racist plantation system, they were accused of being a racist by those oh so saintly racist Democrats.

Finally, a Republican legislature did something. They reformed welfare. They created and authored bills, against the wishes of the Southern Democratic President. When the bills passed by veto proof majority, the Southern Democratic President signed them and claimed he, and he alone reformed welfare. Nice parlor trick. Now his wife wants to undo it all.

No sir, Mr. Stupid Putz,. I know a racist when I see one. The racist symbols are not the hood, sheet, and burning cross. It is the jackass of the Democratic Party.

John. I don't believe that Glenn is saying what you said. Finding racial slurs in even the most innocent of remarks (spade work for preparation) and THEN allowing your campaign to spin it out of control IS Obama playing the race card.

People need to be called to task when they actually have used racial or gender slurs, but to stand complicity by while you let others do your dirty work and make mountains out of molehills seems to be the modus operandi of both the Obama and Hillary campaigns. The Repblicans are playing the same game against each other with different cards.

Hillary plays the poor poor pitiful me put upon by the mean men gender card and her campaign takes offense at anything that even smacks of referencing gender. At the same time the Obama campaign is taking mock umbrage at comments that are not racist.

Under cover of all of this shocked shocked (in the Casablanca sense) outrage, both groups are dispensing real gender and racist slurs in hopes of swaying voters to their camps. Obama wants to get minorities to feel that the Clintons are being racists and Clintons are trying to paint Obama as playing the race card.

They are all despicable and I am enjoying watching the Dems eat their own.

Huggy Bear: [Hutch, Capt. Dobey, and Huggy Bear are deciphering the message from Hutch's abductors] The zoo! Capt. Harold Dobey: Which is where *you* belong! No more of your shuck’n and jive’n!Det. Ken "Hutch" Hutchinson: [a little more deciphering] Starsky is being held at the LA Zoo! [Hutch & Capt. Dobey rush out] Huggy Bear: Don't thank me You know I might bes president some day!(Starsky and Hutch, 1975)

Did she, uh, actually say this, or is this just like a fairy tale fantasy or something?

Re: Simon;

Right, I was born in 1980. My hand to God, I don't recall ever hearing the term before today.

I've encountered it before, and I was born 1982. Probably read it in some jazz-era novel or something. Or possibly a linguistics class. Sounds like something that might have come up in connection with AAVE.

Re: Mortimer:

You need to just accept that she made some unwise remarks and refused to apologize.

But . . . for what? Again, the only thing that really seemed anti-Black racist to me was the Cuomo remark, and he's just a political ally, no? And a longstanding fixture in the Democratic party besides. If it's for discussing LBJ without paying due homage to Dr. King in the same breath, they've gone back and made their obeisances, haven't they?

Well let's hear from THEM, then. I'm willing to believe that normal, reasonable black people took offense at something the Clintons said, but I am also willing to believe that they didn't. I'd like to see some actual evidence either way, rather than just hearing from people who get rich off of phony racial tensions.

Did she, uh, actually say this, or is this just like a fairy tale fantasy or something?

Do you have a more charitable reading of her comparing herself to LBJ, who she claimed as being far more important in securing civil rights for blacks than was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Funny that Dr. King's birthday is a national holiday and not LBJ. Funnier still that her hero at that time, Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights bill, because "you can't legislate morality," which dictum Republicans routinely ignore in other contexts.

Mortimer Brezny said..."You need to just accept that she made some unwise remarks and refused to apologize. Frankly, an apology would have killed the whole issue. Instead, she decided to attack Obama."

If she'd said something that required apologizing for, she should apologize. If she said something unexceptional and is then forced to apologize for it, that legitimzes the attempt to spin it as racially insensitive. I'm still waiting to hear what it is that she supposedly said that was insensitive - I'm going to be very disappointed if this fuss really is about nothing more than the remark about Johnson, which as I said above, only a complete clot could believe was racially insensitive.

And if that is it, she ought to attack them a lot more forthrightly than she has, because they deserve it for such a shallow attempt to spin race into the campaign. Hillary has a lot of faults, but the idea that she's a racist and somehow minimized the role of Dr. King is absurd. I thought I'd seen it all when people suggested that McCain's age was a problem or that Obama is a uniter, but verily there is more absurdity yet to come, it seems.

Right, I was born in 1980. My hand to God, I don't recall ever hearing the term before today.

I've encountered it before, and I was born 1982. Probably read it in some jazz-era novel or something. Or possibly a linguistics class. Sounds like something that might have come up in connection with AAVE.

The term comes up quite often in another old TV show whenever the stars are about to pull a con on the bad guys; ever watch The Dukes of Hazzard?

Joshua: I have no doubt that shuck and jive originates with black americans. I am merely suggesting it isnt racist in its usage and doesnt have the connotation the wiki or yahoo ascribes to it. Also, Wikipedia, like yahoo, is hardly authoritative. Do you have a problem with the OED as definitive? And BTW: those sources in the wiki are really flakey. They come from ethnic studies courses and sources. Free advice: just because it appears on the internet doesnt mean its true.

former law student said..."Do you have a more charitable reading of her comparing herself to LBJ, who she claimed as being far more important in securing civil rights for blacks than was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?"

I'll take that as a concession that you made up a quote, and I'll take that in turn as admitting that this is a fuss about nothing, that the accusations of racial insensitivity are cut out of whole cloth. She said that the achievement of King’s dreams required passage of the civil rights act, which in turn required action by Congress and the President. What part of that you can disagree with, and how you can spin that as Hillary "comparing herself to LBJ" (or yet more absurdly, undervaluing King's role) is beyond my comprehension. The only possible way to get from what she said to what you think she said is if you completely ignore the words that came out of her mouth and substitute other words, as you did above. And if that's an acceptable way to represent what politicians said -- the "what I think they would have said if they're as bad as I think they are" standard -- you don't even want to get me started on Obama, whose every speech comes across to me as "I'm a tool. I'm a tool. I'm a tool. Change. Hope. I'm a tool. I'm a colossal tool. I'm a tool. I'm a tool. Change."

"Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights bill, because 'you can't legislate morality,' which dictum Republicans routinely ignore in other contexts."

Goldwater's stated reason, I had thought, was because he thought that the proposed act was unconstitutional, not that it legislated morality. If he thought the latter, that's correct but irrelevant; you can't legislate morality, but as Lino Graglia has pointed out repeatedly, you can legislate conduct, and like posession, conduct is nine-tenths of the game.

What I want to know is why all the talk about race and "racial voting" on the night of the New Hampshire primary, just after Hillary was named the winner? I was watching MSNBC and could not follow the logic. I just wonder where this current obsession with race really started.

Do you have a more charitable reading of her comparing herself to LBJ, who she claimed as being far more important in securing civil rights for blacks than was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Do you have a link to her saying this?

Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights bill, because "you can't legislate morality," which dictum Republicans routinely ignore in other contexts.

You seem to be trying to paint Goldwater and/or the Republican Party as hypocritical on this point. But in reality the vast majority of the Republican Party has ALWAYS disagreed with Goldwater. Goldwater supported gay rights, drug legalization, and legal abortion, but opposed the Civil Rights Act; Republicans overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Act (80% to the Democrats' 63%) and oppose gay rights, drugs, and abortion.

Goldwater was far, far more libertarian-leaning than the majority of Republicans. Using him as an example of what the party as a whole believes would be a serious mistake.

AJ Lynch said..."Hillary did not actually say it that way. But I got no problem with Former Law Student's interpetation."

I have a problem with it. It requires one to completely disregard what she actually said and substitute different words of alternative meaning in their place. I see no way that someone with a functioning brain stem can in good faith get from what Clinton actually said to FLS' paraphrase.

She said that the achievement of King’s dreams required passage of the civil rights act, which in turn required action by Congress and the President. What part of that you can disagree with, and how you can spin that as Hillary "comparing herself to LBJ" (or yet more absurdly, undervaluing King's role) is beyond my comprehension.

Oh I see. HRC was just giving the interviewer a quick, unprompted civics lesson, in your view. Her statement had nothing to do with Barack Obama at all. In that case, I have to ask why she didn't discuss the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.

CLINTON: I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, "We are going to do it," and actually got it accomplished.

Her point was the importance of selecting the right President. There is no good faith way to spin this the way you're trying to spin it, FLS. Now I don't know you, but you've previously come across as being pretty intelligent, so I'm going to assume that you're deliberately spinning for whatever reason rather than idiotic, and that's disappointing.

Obama's sudden rise is mostly because race or the idea that he can transcend racial politics. If Obama was white, he would not be a serious candidate since he has no experience. Compare/Contrast to Colin Powell or Condi Race who really would transcend race.

Therefore, if his rise is due to race, then his fall can turn on race as well. If people no longer view Obama as one who can transcend race, they will then look to his other qualities, which are few.

Perhaps this is all a masterful political play by the Clintons.

Obama should run for Governor of Illinois in 2010, then run for President in 2016 after he has gained more executive experience.

The Wikipedia article cites several non-internet sources, roger, to support the proposition that the phrase originated as a way to describe certain behavior by slaves. Do you have any actual facts or sources that rebut them? Do you know anything about the particular sources cited? Or is your ideologically-motivated skepticism of certain academic fields, and the assumption that the authors of the cited sources are associated with those fields, all you have to offer?

Free advice: (1)just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's false, even if you really, really wish it were; (2) the Oxford English Dictionary does not contain every phrase ever spoken in the English language. Amazing but true!

Your faux naivete act grows tiresome. Unless you actually did just fall off the turnip truck?

No, I was honestly curious about what she had said, and was hoping for a link to the quote.

Once Simon posted his description of her remarks I was able to track them down. It turns out you lied about what she said, which is a bit disappointing; I would have liked to catch Hillary making an ridiculously egotistical statement like that.

Do you have a more charitable reading of her comparing herself to LBJ, who she claimed as being far more important in securing civil rights for blacks than was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?

What she seems to have said (and a quick Google News search didn't pull up a transcript for me to get the full context) was:

I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, "We are going to do it," and actually got it accomplished.

This seems like a pretty straightforward historical-record kind of thing. MLK galvanized the public, but at the end of the day you have to have a President (unlike, say Kennedy) willing to turn that into concrete legislation. I don't see where she's demeaning MLK's contribution to the civil rights movement. And certainly don't see why the slanted construction you're putting on the comment would be considered fair.

I would criticise the quote for some things -- one is the all-to-typical belief that government can solve social problems by legislating new attitudes. MLK's speech had a rather grander scope than just civil rights legislation, since he was talking about changes to society as a whole, changes to peoples' attitudes and so forth. But it's still a pretty mainstream belief, at least in the Democratic party (and increasingly in the Republican party) that for meaningful social change to occur, you have to have the awful power of the state telling people what to do.

I'm not seeing anything that actually privileges LBJ over MLK. She's just running for president, not the inspirational leader of a social movement, so of course she's going to talk about what a president can do, rather than what the inspirational leader of a social movement can do.

Obama's sudden rise is mostly because race or the idea that he can transcend racial politics.

I disagree. I think the "Great Black Hope" aspect of his candidacy does appeal to some Democrats, but it has to be said that the guy is honestly charismatic. If he was white or Hispanic he'd be doing just as well; maybe even better, since he wouldn't have to overcome the natural suspicion most whites have of black Democratic politicians.

Joshua: did I say the sources cited by the wiki were internet sources? I did not; they are in fact text books written ca mid 70s and appear to support ethnic studies courses. Re the OED: Since I don't have a subscription to the OED, I cannot say if "shuck and jive" is in the OED; however, if it were, I would tend to go with the OED rather than the internet. And you seem to assume that my squeamish with using a wiki is somehow ideologically based. No, it is in fact academically based. Shuck and jive could well have the connotation ascribed to it; I would prefer to see the original sources before I reach a conclusion; until then, I will remain a skeptic.

Andrew Cuomo has said his understanding of the term is that it's basically the same as "bob and weave." Now, that seemed a bit off to me (and we are close enough in age, born of parents close enough in age, that you'd think there'd be some shared sense of experience), but absent an ability to get inside his head, who knows?

AJ Lynch said..."Hillary tried to be cagey but basically claimed she has the experience and Obama does not. And that MLK was less important to meaningful change than the President."

That isn't what she claimed. What she claimed was that achieving King's dream required legislation, and enacting legislation requires action by Congress and the President. As I pointed out above, if popular sentiment could make laws, we'd be out of Iraq by now, but for better or worse, that's not how the system works. Obama knows it, and he's smart enough to know exactly what Clinton meant, so it's appalling testimony to his character that he's left his supporters off the leash to engage in this crude and fantastic race baiting.

reader_iam: I suspect your article is a wee bit biased, because I have yet to see earl ofari hutchinson write a word critical of Hillary. Similarly I have never seen eoh write an uncritical word about Obama.

Revenant said..."[I]t has to be said that the guy is honestly charismatic."

Hey! No one calls Soundwave unchrasamatic! ;)

(I am forced to concede that he is charismatic in the sense that he seems to have an effect over others, but I'm mystified by what the appeal is. Every speech of his I've listened to has been like nails down the chalkboard.)

The Wikipedia article cites several non-internet sources, roger, to support the proposition that the phrase originated as a way to describe certain behavior by slaves.

I think you misread the article. It doesn't date the origins of the phrase (cictionary.com places it in the late 60s); it says that the behavior described by the phrase dates back to slave times. The phrase itself seems to be relatively new and not directly connected to racism or slavery.

The racially-charged element of the phrase has nothing to do with the slavery connection; the problem is that the phrase is *only* ever used to describe dishonest behavior by black people; nobody ever says that a white person is "shucking and jiving".

Yes, Roger, College Composition and Functions of Language in the Classroom sure sound like "ethnic studies" textbooks to me!

I didn't suggest that your skepticism of Wikipedia is ideologically-based, but rather that your skepticism of "ethnic studies" is. Your skepticism of the wiki, I'd wager, arises out of nothing more than the fact that it contradicts what you'd like to believe.

Since you continue to insist that your standards of proof have not been met, even as you fail to offer a scintilla of evidence to independently support your position or even impeach the sources cited, I'll remain skeptical that you're actually interested in discussing this issue in good faith. Now we can both be skeptics!

The racially-charged element of the phrase has nothing to do with the slavery connection; the problem is that the phrase is *only* ever used to describe dishonest behavior by black people; nobody ever says that a white person is "shucking and jiving".

The Educated Redneck, supra, indicates that the phrase was also used to describe the protagonists in Dukes of Hazzard. I haven't seen that show (not even the recent movie), so I don't know whether that's correct or not, but it would suggest a counter-example. The protagonists of the show were Whites, right?

I did draw an inference that the article does not strictly support, revenant, though the Yahoo! link does suggest that the phrase was contemporaneous with slavery. I think all, with the possible exception of Roger, can agree that the phrase has an obvious racial component.

Not true. I depends on where you grew up. I have heard the phrase used all of my life for ANYONE (black or white) who is trying to "pull the wool" over your eyes or.... concocting bullshit story to just get the man/their wife/girlfriend/ boyfriend/whatever to leave them alone...or for a smooth talker trying to bamboozle their way out of a situation.

Don't give me that jive. Bob and weave is just one of the connotations of shuck and jive. Tap dancing your way out of trouble is another.

The Educated Redneck, supra, indicates that the phrase was also used to describe the protagonists in Dukes of Hazzard.

Well, I watched a disturbing amount of Dukes of Hazzard" when I was a kid, but the only dialog I remember from it is "yee-haw".

I guess they might have used the phrase on that show, but I've only ever heard it used (usually BY black people) to describe something a black person was doing. Maybe it is more widely used than that. :)

I didn't suggest that your skepticism of Wikipedia is ideologically-based, but rather that your skepticism of "ethnic studies" is.

Well, the 1970s (when both articles were written) *was* a time when some egregiously bad "scholarship" was done on racial and gender issues. For example, that when the idea that the phrase "rule of thumb" was misogynist was first popularized in academia.

I have to admit that I am extremely skeptical of the claim that "shucking and jiving", as a behavior, dates back to slavery. That sort of behavior (lying to authority and evading the responsibilities authorities tell you you have) is ubiquitous in human society whenever there is a superior/inferior relationship. Enlisted men in the Army pull it on their sergeants/officers, kids pull it on their parents, college kids pull it on the cops who show up in response to noise complaints, etc etc.

I thought this observation from Matt Bai this morning in the NYT was particularly on point to this discussion:

It must be a kind of nightmare for both Clintons to be running, at this moment, against a talented black man, to be caught in an existential choice between losing their mythical status in the black community or possibly losing to a candidate they feel certain does not deserve to win. But only they can afford to be concerned right now with their own historical legacy, about seeing all that they have accomplished on behalf of their party and its commitment to fairness and equality blown away in the space of a few months. No one else is going to protect all that for them. No one around them is going to take the long view, because that’s not the way supporters think.

Ok, well I suppose a literal minded reading of the yahoo and wikipedia definitions could give that impression.

I referred to:

the claim that "shucking and jiving", as a behavior, dates back to slavery

Let's look at that article:

"To shuck and jive" originally referred to the intentionally misleading words and actions that African-Americans would employ in order to deceive racist Euro-Americans in power, both during the period of slavery and afterwards.

Gee, how "literal minded" of me -- interpreting a claim that the behavior existed during the period of slavery and afterwards as a claim that the behavior dated back to the period of slavery. A more broad-minded reader would doubtless have realized that just saying something that something has been done during the period of slavery and afterwards doesn't mean it dates back to the period of slavery. :)

When the Adams family became a popular TV phenomena, the network executives had to cover up several unsavory facts about the cast. They were indeed very creepy and very kooky. Gomez Adams was of course a Cuban refugee who had been in the mountains with Fidel and Che, but who saw which way the wind was blowing and flew to Miami before he was put up against the wall. Although the day of the blacklist was over, no one wanted to be known as harboring a communist in the workplace. The orgy photos of Morticia doing the entire cast of The Saracen Blade when she was a young starlet had to be suppressed. And of course there was the fact that Uncle Fester was a virulent racist. He was the Grand Kleage of the Hollywood Ku Klux Klan and led many a foray to burn crosses and attack minorities. In fact his full name was Uncle Festering Racial Prejudice which he shortened to Uncle Fester as a stage name.(Stanley Z. Cherry and Arthur Hiller, E True Hollywood Story, The Adams Family).

Mortimer Brezny said..."[What should she apologize for?] You make some awkward statements that piss off your base, you make a public apology. It's called politics. Hillary Clinton may not be a racist, but she's a f****** idiot, and the way she's played this situation should disqualify her from the Oval Office."

You're right. She should apologize that a bunch of race hucksters and shills for her opponents seized on and misrepresented her comments in a crude attempt to create an absurd spin. she should apologize for the incredible stupidity of even running for President, thus facilitating misrepresentation and distortion of what she actually said. She should immediatley apologize for standing in the way of the anointed one. Anyone so stupid as to point out that Obama is an empty suit is disqualified from the Oval Office.

The person whose conduct in this is reprehensible is Obama, for not stomping on his supporters' cheap race baiting effort, not Hillary. If there's one constant with critics of Hillary, it's the immediate rush to blame the victim. It's grotesque and it distracts from the real and valid criticisms of her.

The politics of "hope" turns out to be the politics of "I hope no one checks the transcript."

She should apologize that a bunch of race hucksters and shills for her opponents seized on and misrepresented her comments in a crude attempt to create an absurd spin.

She should whine "But that's not how I meant it. You people are overly sensitive."

And then everything would be OK.

Hint: When your words have insulted people, even if you never intended to insult them, the people are still hurt. Assuming HRC never intended to hurt anyone, she should have had no trouble apologizing. Instead she denied the reality of her listeners' feelings.

A husband would never have made this mistake more than once -- this shows the advantage men have.

I am not sure if we can definitively identify the origins of "shuck and jive". But, after having grown in the 50s and 60s, I have always associated it with the Black community, and am not surprised at it showing up in Starsky and Hutch, since that show did portray a racial stereotype of Blacks (e.g. Huggy Bear, who appears to be somewhere between a pimp and a drug dealer by his dress, etc.)

"Spade work" on the other hand, has not had racial associations for me, but rather, was always been associated in my mind with the shovelling that was typically necessary before a building could be constructed.

But the real problem for the Clintons here is that the standard that the left has imposed is that if a group sees something as an insult, etc., esp., a racial one, then racial Thus, niggardly is taken as racial, despite its long history and far different derivation. Historically, it was race neutral, but includes the "N" word, so by definition, must be racist today.

In other words, the white liberals flocking around the Hillary! banner are being hoist upon their PC petard by this. Cuomo is young enough that he probably didn't understand the racial implications and associations with "shuck and jive", but that is irrelevant in today's heightened PC environment.

Sorry, in my last post, the second to last paragraph got chopped up by Windows Vista. It should have read:

But the real problem for the Clintons here is that the standard that the left has imposed is that if a group sees something as an insult, etc., esp., a racial one, then it is considered racist. Intent is presumed. Thus, niggardly is taken as racial, despite its long history and far different derivation. Historically, it was race neutral, but includes the "N" word, so by definition, must be racist today.

Bruce, I actually made up some of that Starsky and Hutch dialog. My posts are not a transcript but rather a creative interpolation of what it should really sound like if were to be exactly on the point. I try to do a little comic embellishment so please don't rely on my posts for anything other than giggles. All the best.

"....But the real problem for the Clintons here is that the standard that the left has imposed is that if a group sees something as an insult, etc., esp., a racial one, then it is considered racist. Intent is presumed."

BINGO!! We have a winner :-). Well said, BH.

IMO, the Clintons had much to do with setting this standard you speak of. In an almost sadly ironic way, Hillary is now a victum of the hideous monster she and like minded leftist intellectuals created. Oh well.

former law student said..."She should whine 'But that's not how I meant it. You people are overly sensitive.' And then everything would be OK."

As I said upthread To apologize would be to validate and legitimize the misrepresentation, and to signal to her enemies that if they spin and distort her remarks, they can force her to respond and march to their drumbeat. Oh, for alternative dispute resolution... This idea that "if she didn't mean it that way then there's no harm in apologizing" is disconnected from reality. It may often be appropriate in interpersonal relations, but it's not appropriate here.

Bruce Hayden said..."But the real problem for the Clintons here is that the standard that the left has imposed is that if a group sees something as an insult, etc., esp., a racial one, then it is considered racist. Intent is presumed. Thus, niggardly is taken as racial, despite its long history and far different derivation. Historically, it was race neutral, but includes the "N" word, so by definition, must be racist today."

I was once ordered point-blank to take that word out of a memo to a client because there was a concern that the client might not understand that "niggardly" and "n*****" are totally diffent words with different meanings and etymologies. I can't help but wonder if lawyers are sometimes required to use an alteration to eliminate the word "negro" from older cases in case someone takes offense.

I think Obama is *foolish* for cozying up to Sharpton, but I don't see his behavior as any worse than that of the Clinton campaign and its drug dealer/Muslim attacks on Obama.

Yes . . . but doesn't it impact them in rather different ways? When I see the Clintons smearing their political opponents with lies and half-truths, it's not shocking or appalling. It's exactly what I expect them to do because that's what they did all through the 90s. Hillary Clinton isn't pretending to be Mrs. Squeaky-Clean.

Obama is. I think it hurts him a lot more to get down in the muck, simply because he's supposed to be all about that "audacity of hope" rubbish, and allowing his allies to engage in scurrilous race-baiting is way off message. Voters might think he's not such a nice young man after all.

There is something overlooked with the Democrats. The Clinton campaig has set the tone and rules for the campaign. What they say goes. If you follow the rules and play nice, they will leave you alone- Hillary is inevitable.

If you break the rules, they unleash the dogs of demonization upon you. Obama refuses to play by their rules.

It is not about race and all that code word stuff is just bovine excrement. Obama refuses to go along to get along and they are going to indirectly try to destroy him.

The Clintons better change their rules though. Obama is gaining in popularity and viability. He can bring the campaign to the Clintons. He can set the rules. He can play defense and offense.

Obama is going to break everyone of the Clinton rules. He is going to keep them on defense and you cannot win by only playing defense.

Back during the 90s, the Clintons regularly engaged in extremely destructive attack tactics (Carville was famous for them), but got away with it because of Bill's charm. The fact that reporters are almost entirely Democrats helped too, of course, but mostly it was his charm.

Hillary can't pull that off -- not because of her reputation, but because she's about as charming as a plate of liver and onions. Obama, on the other hand, is charismatic enough that I think he can probably get away with pulling the Bill Clinton routine of saying "I think it is time for us all to put aside our partisan differences" while knifing his opponent in the kidney.

What he CAN'T pull off, in my opinion, is cozying up to the Jacksons and Sharptons of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have had two previous high-profile black Presidential candidates, and they've both been anti-white, anti-Jewish race hucksters and borderline criminals. Fairly or not, a lot of voters are going to harbor a suspicion that Obama's no better, and associating with the aforementioned hucksters isn't going to do anything to dissuade them of that feeling.

You bring up an important point. But I don't agree. They don't look like implants. I think if she got implants they would have to be bigger. They look natural and very perky for a woman of her status.But I am willing to investigate further.

if a group sees something as an insult, etc., esp., a racial one, then it is considered racist. Intent is presumed.

No, intent is not presumed. I have studied the left and this is what I learned: Remarks are racist or not, irrespective of the speaker's intent. Non-racist people can make racist remarks unintentionally because they can not put themselves in the place of the minority group members -- they just don't get it. This is called "white privilege." But if you keep making the remark after you have been called on it, you likely are a racist.

I may have been right about Obama's ability to pull off a Bill Clinton-style "can't we all just get along" schtick. Now that his supporters have lambasted Hillary for racially insensitive remarks, Obama is seizing the high ground by saying that he doesn't think Clinton said anything bad. Classic!

boy, revenant, it took until 12:49am for posters on this comment thread to leave their cleverness and analysis of what is racist and read the news?

it was masterful, obama's move today. and whether you like him or not, it looks truthful and genuine.

hillary's quick 'me too' that appeared shortly thereafter, otoh, looks calculated. it didn't help that it was followed up by a nasty tirade from hrc supporters (and prominent african americans) senator rangel today or bet founder bob johnson yesterday. (i removed the links because blogger was leaving them unclosed, hence the double 'deletes')

it was masterful, obama's move today. and whether you like him or not, it looks truthful and genuine.

Does it? Truthful and genuine? Not from where I'm standing. He's quoted in earlier news reports declining to tamp down on the race-baiting by his supporters:

"Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement," Obama said in a conference call with reporters. "I haven't remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that. But the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."

Golden opportunity to repudiate the race-baiting, and he passed it up.

I think he's figured the initial furore has passed; the damage to Clinton has been done to his satisfaction; people are beginning to realise it's all trumped up; and it's starting to make him look bad, so he's going to take the expedient route and shut down discussion before it starts eating into his support as well as Clinton's.

Re: FSL:

they just don't get it. This is called "white privilege."

I don't buy into theories that make "white privilege" a central feature of modern American racism. As a Korean-American, I see the defining outbreak of racial violence against Korean-Americans as Saigu (4-29), the LA Riots. That wasn't White racists going Kristallnacht on Korean businesses. When we get songs with lyrics like this, seething with race-hate against Koreans, I just can't see "white privilege" as anything more than a marginal problem of racism in America. We have honest to goodness racism out there -- stuff you don't need postmodern deconstructionist filters to identify. It percolates up in the mainstream from time to time -- see here, for example. But even there, the writer must surely realise that a lot of the problem is not claptrap about differing cultural modes -- it's flat out that an awful lot of Blacks are racist against Koreans, and an awful lot of Koreans are racist against Blacks. That needs to be confronted head-on. People need to be ashamed of that.

And I think most of America's modern racial problems are problems like this -- racism that doesn't involve Whites at all in any who-whom relation. And as Whites decline, as a percentage of the population, the public is going to have to deal with these new social facts, not cling to the sixties. Nattering on about "white privilege" does us all a disservice by framing the debate, misleadingly, to suggest that White racism is the definitive lens through which to view the problem of racism in America. It lets minorities off the hook for our racism. Worst of all are those people who claim that minorities cannot be racist -- a claim ludicrous on its face, but one which people make all the time. Particularly when it comes from authoritative sources, such as academic bodies, it serves to legitimate some really noxious stuff.

Maybe the "white racism" frame is accurate if you're in Iowa, I guess. Or if you live a life of country-clubs and posh golf resorts. But not for the rest of us.

Interesting observations from an interesting perspective. One observation though is that you are less likely to find real racism these days at the country club than most other places, assuming of course that the "country club" is a proxy for a certain segment of the population. Rather, I would suggest that it is much more prevalent on the shop floor.

First, it is politically incorrect to be racist any more, and that is much more likely to affect the upper middle class than anywhere else. Secondly, the Blacks that they know tend to be the successful ones, and thus have more in common with the country club set than any do with the working classes. And, probably most importantly, they are not in direct competition with Blacks for their jobs.

Let me also note that in the West, and in particular, the South West, the friction is with Hispanics, far, far, more than with Blacks. It was not an accident that Tom Tancredo is from Colorado, despite having two Hispanics in his delegation (but they are ok, since their family came to CO long before his did).

But I do think that you touched on something, that much, if not most, of the racism today is not Black/White, but among the various "minorities", as evidenced by your mention of the LA riots, and in particular, the burning out of a lot of Asian businesses there by the rioting Blacks.

The Race is over. Hillary and Barak said so. no more race. How nice. This blip over so called code words and who has the right to throw MLK's name about was one of the silliest issues of the campaign and we all fell for it.

It also shows that neither Clinton nor Obama should be the president. Their campaigns fell into a childish argument that raged for days.

This point in the campaign shows that the Democratic Party is rooted in the past. The Civil Rights era is long over. The issue of Civil Rights is only kept alive to give certain people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, along with others relevance.

If these two are thebest the Democratic Party has to offer, then this country is in trouble.

Hint: When your words have insulted people, even if you never intended to insult them, the people are still hurt. Assuming HRC never intended to hurt anyone, she should have had no trouble apologizing. Instead she denied the reality of her listeners' feelings.

Hillary's root problem is that, like Obama, there is no there there, but unlike Obama she has no charisma to carry her through.

She has no definitive personal experience with which to distinguish herself from Obama without opening up the planeful of snakes that was the Clinton Whitehouse. On the flip side, she's got no record in her eight years as co-president/ten years in the Senate/thirty-five years of experience to claim that shes' someone who won't just change the rhetoric but will get things done.

She's forced into making claims of experience-by-proxy. She maybe correct in her assesement of how the CRA was passed but she's got no connection with LBJ other than also being a pale-skinned Democrat. If she had a record of authoring or passing legislation in the Senate like LBJ did, the comparison would not seem so blatantly racial.

Simon you are just not up on your racial invective. The election of Barack Obama will require an adjustment in our vocabulary. We must eliminate the term "niggardly" in describe the expenditures of our Congress, no one will be doing any "spade" work, and of course the CIA will have to fire all the "spooks."

Hint: When your words have insulted people, even if you never intended to insult them, the people are still hurt.

If I say something and people take offense from it, I owe them an apology only if I consider it reasonable that they took offense.

If I refer to "spade work" and some nitwit of a black guy assumes the word "spade" is meant as a racial slur, I don't owe him an apology. In my opinion he would owe ME an apology for claiming that I'd used a racial slur.

Revenant said..."If I refer to 'spade work' and some nitwit ... assumes the word 'spade' is meant as a racial slur, I don't owe him an apology. In my opinion he would owe ME an apology for claiming that I'd used a racial slur."